I posted this somewhere else the other day but I think it needs its own separate discussion.

I think that mankinds fascination with truth is very telling...

We are all on this website talking about what is true to the best of our conceptions. We are all trying to find out what is true, and trying to convince everyone else of what it is we found.

Why do we do this?Why do I desire truth?

Scientific Rational answer:

"In infinite space, in infinite time, infinitely small particles change their forms in infinite complexity, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

The problem with science is the sequence of cause and effect only works when you talk about material phenomena.

It is only necessary for experimental science to introduce a question of value for it to become nonsensical.

Yet, truth is universally valued by people. This value people place on truth is something that science cannot explain adequately.

The whole reason anyone even cares about science is because they are looking for truth. But science cannot, and will not be able to answer the question why should I care about truth.

In other words science cannot answer the question "why should I care about science?"

Therefore it is irrational to care about science.

I would rather believe in God, It makes more rational sense :)

*** So there it is. I am sure that someone has thoughts or opinions, However I doubt anyone will be able to give a scientifically testable reason that science, or truth has value, and is therefore worth caring about***

At 2/10/2013 10:07:56 AM, j_lowe wrote:I posted this somewhere else the other day but I think it needs its own separate discussion.

I think that mankinds fascination with truth is very telling...

We are all on this website talking about what is true to the best of our conceptions. We are all trying to find out what is true, and trying to convince everyone else of what it is we found.

Why do we do this?Why do I desire truth?

Scientific Rational answer:

"In infinite space, in infinite time, infinitely small particles change their forms in infinite complexity, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

The problem with science is the sequence of cause and effect only works when you talk about material phenomena.

It is only necessary for experimental science to introduce a question of value for it to become nonsensical.

Yet, truth is universally valued by people. This value people place on truth is something that science cannot explain adequately.

The whole reason anyone even cares about science is because they are looking for truth. But science cannot, and will not be able to answer the question why should I care about truth.

In other words science cannot answer the question "why should I care about science?"

Therefore it is irrational to care about science.

I would rather believe in God, It makes more rational sense :)

*** So there it is. I am sure that someone has thoughts or opinions, However I doubt anyone will be able to give a scientifically testable reason that science, or truth has value, and is therefore worth caring about***

Define value. Also explain what system you expect to be used for said valuation, Ie: monetary, energy, spiritual, etc.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

You can never definitively proof that something "causes" another thing. The causal relationship is constructed by your imagination because it sees one thing preceding another, perhaps multiple times. In order to prove causation, however, you need to prove the principle of induction true, which is impossible.

Your attack on science is total bogus, by the way. Nobody believes that space-time is infinite. In fact, there is a projection for the size of the universe.

At 2/10/2013 10:07:56 AM, j_lowe wrote:I posted this somewhere else the other day but I think it needs its own separate discussion.

I think that mankinds fascination with truth is very telling...

We are all on this website talking about what is true to the best of our conceptions. We are all trying to find out what is true, and trying to convince everyone else of what it is we found.

Why do we do this?Why do I desire truth?

Scientific Rational answer:

"In infinite space, in infinite time, infinitely small particles change their forms in infinite complexity, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

The problem with science is the sequence of cause and effect only works when you talk about material phenomena.

It is only necessary for experimental science to introduce a question of value for it to become nonsensical.

Yet, truth is universally valued by people. This value people place on truth is something that science cannot explain adequately.

The whole reason anyone even cares about science is because they are looking for truth. But science cannot, and will not be able to answer the question why should I care about truth.

In other words science cannot answer the question "why should I care about science?"

Therefore it is irrational to care about science.

I would rather believe in God, It makes more rational sense :)

*** So there it is. I am sure that someone has thoughts or opinions, However I doubt anyone will be able to give a scientifically testable reason that science, or truth has value, and is therefore worth caring about***

Define value. Also explain what system you expect to be used for said valuation, Ie: monetary, energy, spiritual, etc.

Insert whatever type of value you would like here...

However, in the example of monetary value. If you could prove that science had monetary value, you would then have to prove that money had value besides an arbitrary one.

In other words if you link the value of science to something else then then that thing must have value as well.

At 2/10/2013 10:07:56 AM, j_lowe wrote:I posted this somewhere else the other day but I think it needs its own separate discussion.

I think that mankinds fascination with truth is very telling...

We are all on this website talking about what is true to the best of our conceptions. We are all trying to find out what is true, and trying to convince everyone else of what it is we found.

Why do we do this?Why do I desire truth?

Scientific Rational answer:

"In infinite space, in infinite time, infinitely small particles change their forms in infinite complexity, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

The problem with science is the sequence of cause and effect only works when you talk about material phenomena.

It is only necessary for experimental science to introduce a question of value for it to become nonsensical.

Yet, truth is universally valued by people. This value people place on truth is something that science cannot explain adequately.

The whole reason anyone even cares about science is because they are looking for truth. But science cannot, and will not be able to answer the question why should I care about truth.

In other words science cannot answer the question "why should I care about science?"

Therefore it is irrational to care about science.

I would rather believe in God, It makes more rational sense :)

*** So there it is. I am sure that someone has thoughts or opinions, However I doubt anyone will be able to give a scientifically testable reason that science, or truth has value, and is therefore worth caring about***

Define value. Also explain what system you expect to be used for said valuation, Ie: monetary, energy, spiritual, etc.

Insert whatever type of value you would like here...

However, in the example of monetary value. If you could prove that science had monetary value, you would then have to prove that money had value besides an arbitrary one.

In other words if you link the value of science to something else then then that thing must have value as well.

And you have officially asked for the impossible. Value in of itself is arbitrary. There is no such thing as a valuation system that is not arbitrary. But how can you put a value on the thousands saved by science? How can you put a value of the extra time someone get with their family while dying from cancer thanks to science. How do you put a value on the millions of people that won't go hungry thanks to scientific advancements in farming. You asking for something that is impossible then acting like this makes science something useless.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

At 2/10/2013 10:13:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:You can never definitively proof that something "causes" another thing. The causal relationship is constructed by your imagination because it sees one thing preceding another, perhaps multiple times. In order to prove causation, however, you need to prove the principle of induction true, which is impossible.

Your attack on science is total bogus, by the way. Nobody believes that space-time is infinite. In fact, there is a projection for the size of the universe.

Ok, for you I will change part of my original statement for you.

"In more space than you can comprehend, in billions and billions of years, incomprehensibly small particles change their forms in mind blowingly complex ways, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

At 2/10/2013 10:13:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:You can never definitively proof that something "causes" another thing. The causal relationship is constructed by your imagination because it sees one thing preceding another, perhaps multiple times. In order to prove causation, however, you need to prove the principle of induction true, which is impossible.

Your attack on science is total bogus, by the way. Nobody believes that space-time is infinite. In fact, there is a projection for the size of the universe.

Ok, for you I will change part of my original statement for you.

"In more space than you can comprehend, in billions and billions of years, incomprehensibly small particles change their forms in mind blowingly complex ways, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

You do realize that there doesn't have to be a "law" behind these things, right? Quantum physics essentially proves that there is a great deal of randomness in the way the universe operates.

At 2/10/2013 10:07:56 AM, j_lowe wrote:I posted this somewhere else the other day but I think it needs its own separate discussion.

I think that mankinds fascination with truth is very telling...

We are all on this website talking about what is true to the best of our conceptions. We are all trying to find out what is true, and trying to convince everyone else of what it is we found.

Why do we do this?Why do I desire truth?

Scientific Rational answer:

"In infinite space, in infinite time, infinitely small particles change their forms in infinite complexity, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

The problem with science is the sequence of cause and effect only works when you talk about material phenomena.

It is only necessary for experimental science to introduce a question of value for it to become nonsensical.

Yet, truth is universally valued by people. This value people place on truth is something that science cannot explain adequately.

The whole reason anyone even cares about science is because they are looking for truth. But science cannot, and will not be able to answer the question why should I care about truth.

In other words science cannot answer the question "why should I care about science?"

Therefore it is irrational to care about science.

I would rather believe in God, It makes more rational sense :)

*** So there it is. I am sure that someone has thoughts or opinions, However I doubt anyone will be able to give a scientifically testable reason that science, or truth has value, and is therefore worth caring about***

Define value. Also explain what system you expect to be used for said valuation, Ie: monetary, energy, spiritual, etc.

Insert whatever type of value you would like here...

However, in the example of monetary value. If you could prove that science had monetary value, you would then have to prove that money had value besides an arbitrary one.

In other words if you link the value of science to something else then then that thing must have value as well.

And you have officially asked for the impossible. Value in of itself is arbitrary. There is no such thing as a valuation system that is not arbitrary. But how can you put a value on the thousands saved by science? How can you put a value of the extra time someone get with their family while dying from cancer thanks to science. How do you put a value on the millions of people that won't go hungry thanks to scientific advancements in farming. You asking for something that is impossible then acting like this makes science something useless.

I knew it was impossible when I asked it... The point is that the scientific rational world view destroys its own value.

All systems of value are arbitrary from a scientific world view.

Therefore, there is no rational reason to elevate science as being superior to religion in answering lifes questions.

At 2/10/2013 10:13:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:You can never definitively proof that something "causes" another thing. The causal relationship is constructed by your imagination because it sees one thing preceding another, perhaps multiple times. In order to prove causation, however, you need to prove the principle of induction true, which is impossible.

Your attack on science is total bogus, by the way. Nobody believes that space-time is infinite. In fact, there is a projection for the size of the universe.

Ok, for you I will change part of my original statement for you.

"In more space than you can comprehend, in billions and billions of years, incomprehensibly small particles change their forms in mind blowingly complex ways, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

You do realize that there doesn't have to be a "law" behind these things, right? Quantum physics essentially proves that there is a great deal of randomness in the way the universe operates.

Ok, I will revise it one more time, it makes no difference to my core argument.

"In more space than you can comprehend, in billions and billions of years, incomprehensibly small particles change their forms in mind blowingly complex ways, and when you have under stood the probability of these random mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

At 2/10/2013 10:07:56 AM, j_lowe wrote:I posted this somewhere else the other day but I think it needs its own separate discussion.

I think that mankinds fascination with truth is very telling...

We are all on this website talking about what is true to the best of our conceptions. We are all trying to find out what is true, and trying to convince everyone else of what it is we found.

Why do we do this?Why do I desire truth?

Scientific Rational answer:

"In infinite space, in infinite time, infinitely small particles change their forms in infinite complexity, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

The problem with science is the sequence of cause and effect only works when you talk about material phenomena.

It is only necessary for experimental science to introduce a question of value for it to become nonsensical.

Yet, truth is universally valued by people. This value people place on truth is something that science cannot explain adequately.

The whole reason anyone even cares about science is because they are looking for truth. But science cannot, and will not be able to answer the question why should I care about truth.

In other words science cannot answer the question "why should I care about science?"

Therefore it is irrational to care about science.

I would rather believe in God, It makes more rational sense :)

*** So there it is. I am sure that someone has thoughts or opinions, However I doubt anyone will be able to give a scientifically testable reason that science, or truth has value, and is therefore worth caring about***

Define value. Also explain what system you expect to be used for said valuation, Ie: monetary, energy, spiritual, etc.

Insert whatever type of value you would like here...

However, in the example of monetary value. If you could prove that science had monetary value, you would then have to prove that money had value besides an arbitrary one.

In other words if you link the value of science to something else then then that thing must have value as well.

And you have officially asked for the impossible. Value in of itself is arbitrary. There is no such thing as a valuation system that is not arbitrary. But how can you put a value on the thousands saved by science? How can you put a value of the extra time someone get with their family while dying from cancer thanks to science. How do you put a value on the millions of people that won't go hungry thanks to scientific advancements in farming. You asking for something that is impossible then acting like this makes science something useless.

I knew it was impossible when I asked it... The point is that the scientific rational world view destroys its own value.

All systems of value are arbitrary from a scientific world view.

Therefore, there is no rational reason to elevate science as being superior to religion in answering lifes questions.

A. All systems of value are arbitrary from any point of view.

B. Give me one life question that religion has answered, with proof for tHis answer, because I can show you hundreds that science has answered. Namely, how did we get here, how do we think, how do we live, how did the universe begin, and why is purple purple.

C. Your whole premise relies on the existence of a dichotomy between science and religion, when no such dichotomy exists.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

At 2/10/2013 10:13:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:You can never definitively proof that something "causes" another thing. The causal relationship is constructed by your imagination because it sees one thing preceding another, perhaps multiple times. In order to prove causation, however, you need to prove the principle of induction true, which is impossible.

Your attack on science is total bogus, by the way. Nobody believes that space-time is infinite. In fact, there is a projection for the size of the universe.

Ok, for you I will change part of my original statement for you.

"In more space than you can comprehend, in billions and billions of years, incomprehensibly small particles change their forms in mind blowingly complex ways, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

You do realize that there doesn't have to be a "law" behind these things, right? Quantum physics essentially proves that there is a great deal of randomness in the way the universe operates.

Ok, I will revise it one more time, it makes no difference to my core argument.

"In more space than you can comprehend, in billions and billions of years, incomprehensibly small particles change their forms in mind blowingly complex ways, and when you have under stood the probability of these random mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

Your whole argument is basically a God of the Gaps fallacy. You think that we don't know what causes our desires, so therefore God must have done it.

Alright, so suppose I accept your argument (I don't-it's a logical fallacy). What proves the Christian God true as opposed to a Deist God?

At 2/10/2013 10:13:48 AM, royalpaladin wrote:You can never definitively proof that something "causes" another thing. The causal relationship is constructed by your imagination because it sees one thing preceding another, perhaps multiple times. In order to prove causation, however, you need to prove the principle of induction true, which is impossible.

Your attack on science is total bogus, by the way. Nobody believes that space-time is infinite. In fact, there is a projection for the size of the universe.

Ok, for you I will change part of my original statement for you.

"In more space than you can comprehend, in billions and billions of years, incomprehensibly small particles change their forms in mind blowingly complex ways, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

You do realize that there doesn't have to be a "law" behind these things, right? Quantum physics essentially proves that there is a great deal of randomness in the way the universe operates.

Ok, I will revise it one more time, it makes no difference to my core argument.

"In more space than you can comprehend, in billions and billions of years, incomprehensibly small particles change their forms in mind blowingly complex ways, and when you have under stood the probability of these random mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

Actually, you will understand how it is that your desires work. Not why they do. And there is no guarantee of that, since the possibility of supernatural desires exists. Hence making them outside the world of these particles and their mutations.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

At 2/10/2013 10:07:56 AM, j_lowe wrote:I posted this somewhere else the other day but I think it needs its own separate discussion.

I think that mankinds fascination with truth is very telling...

We are all on this website talking about what is true to the best of our conceptions. We are all trying to find out what is true, and trying to convince everyone else of what it is we found.

Why do we do this?Why do I desire truth?

Scientific Rational answer:

"In infinite space, in infinite time, infinitely small particles change their forms in infinite complexity, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

The problem with science is the sequence of cause and effect only works when you talk about material phenomena.

It is only necessary for experimental science to introduce a question of value for it to become nonsensical.

Yet, truth is universally valued by people. This value people place on truth is something that science cannot explain adequately.

The whole reason anyone even cares about science is because they are looking for truth. But science cannot, and will not be able to answer the question why should I care about truth.

In other words science cannot answer the question "why should I care about science?"

Therefore it is irrational to care about science.

I would rather believe in God, It makes more rational sense :)

*** So there it is. I am sure that someone has thoughts or opinions, However I doubt anyone will be able to give a scientifically testable reason that science, or truth has value, and is therefore worth caring about***

I disagree with your jump from "science can't explain why value should be put behind science" to "value of science is irrational." There are many non-scientific values to caring about science.For example, early scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton cared about explaining how the natural world works for religious reasons; they wished to understand the divine existence of God through understanding the marvelous and complex world that God created. In this way, they valued science for the value they put behind religion and God. Others put value in science because, for non-scientific reasons, they desire an understanding of the natural world. The value people give to things depends on their system of values. In this way, your argument is less about valuing science being irrational and more about values themselves being irrational. Thus, unless you can prove that a religious value system can prove its own value and consistency without circular reasoning, you can't argue that valuing religion is any more rational than valuing science (although, in doing so you will provide a rational justification for valuing science).

"Science are hard, I just say "God did it" and me no longer worry pretty little head about hard things."

Gotta say that this made me lol.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

Feynman's chess analogy addresses this pretty well. To put your idea in perspective, even if you find that the bishop can seemingly disappear and appear on a different colored square, that doesn't change the general rule that it only moves diagonally, it only provides an exception to that rule. Special relativity didn't make Newtonian physics suddenly completely useless; kinetics and dynamics still provide the same accurate results. The fact that quantum particles can do random things doesn't change the fact that matter on a macroscopic level cannot.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

At 2/10/2013 10:07:56 AM, j_lowe wrote:In other words science cannot answer the question "why should I care about science?"

Are you saying one should only care for something if that something can, itself, offer an explanation for why you should care for it? I'd very much like to disagree with you as succinctly as possible so I may continue eating this delicious cheeseburger, which provides me much happiness, though it cannot offer any explanation as to why.

(While we're on the subject, I doubt very much God could answer the question "why should I care about you, God?" He's been a very distant father of late, if not entirely absent.)

At 2/10/2013 10:07:56 AM, j_lowe wrote:I posted this somewhere else the other day but I think it needs its own separate discussion.

I think that mankinds fascination with truth is very telling...

We are all on this website talking about what is true to the best of our conceptions. We are all trying to find out what is true, and trying to convince everyone else of what it is we found.

Why do we do this?Why do I desire truth?

Scientific Rational answer:

"In infinite space, in infinite time, infinitely small particles change their forms in infinite complexity, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

The problem with science is the sequence of cause and effect only works when you talk about material phenomena.

It is only necessary for experimental science to introduce a question of value for it to become nonsensical.

Yet, truth is universally valued by people. This value people place on truth is something that science cannot explain adequately.

The whole reason anyone even cares about science is because they are looking for truth. But science cannot, and will not be able to answer the question why should I care about truth.

In other words science cannot answer the question "why should I care about science?"

Therefore it is irrational to care about science.

I would rather believe in God, It makes more rational sense :)

*** So there it is. I am sure that someone has thoughts or opinions, However I doubt anyone will be able to give a scientifically testable reason that science, or truth has value, and is therefore worth caring about***

There are so many comments" and so little time. I really do not have time to develop a good response to all of them but I will try to hit the ones that I found interesting. I am rolling up all my responses in one post to save a lite time. This is obviously not going to change anyones mind but I thought I would throw it out there anyway. I am sure I can count on some sarcastic responses showing up soon &#61514;

DakotaKrafick said

"Are you saying one should only care for something if that something can, itself, offer an explanation for why you should care for it? I'd very much like to disagree with you as succinctly as possible so I may continue eating this delicious cheeseburger, which provides me much happiness, though it cannot offer any explanation as to why.

(While we're on the subject, I doubt very much God could answer the question "why should I care about you, God?" He's been a very distant father of late, if not entirely absent.)"

response:I am not saying that the object you care about has to provide you a reason to care. I am sure that your cheeseburger was good and provided you happiness. However your entire worldview has to provide you with a reason to care about anything.

What I am saying is: From a materialistic, empirical, point of view there is only what can be measured or observed. All values whether it is a value on cheeseburgers, the sanctity of life, the preference for telling the truth" whatever cannot be measured or observed. So you may believe in the value of something. However, since its value cannot be proven, you believe in its value because you feel like it not because it is rational within your world view.

If there is nothing to human existence other than a bunch of atoms arranged in a human shape that produce a conception of autonomy from the rest of the universe, then what is the value of giving those atoms a cheeseburger? Or telling them the truth? Or not rearranging them so they no longer function as a cohesive whole (murder)?

There is none. Life has no value, truth no value, cheeseburgers no value, by a materialistic (scientific rational) world view. And furthermore, if none of those things have value then neither does the materialistic world view its self. What value can any worldview have if the human mind that believes in it cannot be shown to have value?

Skepsikymaresponse:You are on a bunny trail, I am not comparing the relative merits of different scientific theories.

drafterman

Response:It is amusing the way people on here seem to think that if someone has a problem with scientific method, or the philosophy of science, that they are stupid. Unless you are a scientist for a living, or a masters level student in a science related field, then I doubt you know any more about any of this than I do.

Enji said

"I disagree with your jump from "science can't explain why value should be put behind science" to "value of science is irrational." There are many non-scientific values to caring about science.For example, early scientists like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton cared about explaining how the natural world works for religious reasons; they wished to understand the divine existence of God through understanding the marvelous and complex world that God created. In this way, they valued science for the value they put behind religion and God. Others put value in science because, for non-scientific reasons, they desire an understanding of the natural world. The value people give to things depends on their system of values. In this way, your argument is less about valuing science being irrational and more about values themselves being irrational. Thus, unless you can prove that a religious value system can prove its own value and consistency without circular reasoning, you can't argue that valuing religion is any more rational than valuing science (although, in doing so you will provide a rational justification for valuing science)."

response:

Enji, this is the most compelling response I got. I do agree that early science was birthed from a religious world view and grew from there.

What nags at me is that scientists today (and people who post on internet forums) do not accept anything that cannot be proven can be worth believing in. Then, in the next breath they make an appeal to truth that we should all universally believe in it.

Usually the statement looks like this "You cannot prove that God exists. You are delusional, and should accept the truth of (insert scientific theory here)"

Or

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

So what I am saying is that I agree with you that all values are irrational. With an IF. If you accept a materialistic worldview where only what is provable exists then all values are irrational.

What if there are things that beyond the proof of science that do exist?

99% of the world places a value on truth, life, bravery, compassion, etc. Yet these things are beyond any type of validation by science. I believe societies the values exist apart from any scientific proof of their existence. The preponderance of numbers of people that share common values even across completely different societies and worldviews attest to this.

However, for someone who does not believe in things that cannot be proven to appeal to these values is inconsistent. If they can appeal to the value of truth then I can appeal to God. The proof for either is the same.

royalpaladin

response:

So what? You believe that science will fill all the gaps. Inserting anything into an unknown and building your world view from there is fraught with problems.

muzebreak said

"A. All systems of value are arbitrary from any point of view.

B. Give me one life question that religion has answered, with proof for tHis answer, because I can show you hundreds that science has answered. Namely, how did we get here, how do we think, how do we live, how did the universe begin, and why is purple purple.

C. Your whole premise relies on the existence of a dichotomy between science and religion, when no such dichotomy exists."

Response:

Not from any point of view. Only from a point of view that denies that anything exists beyond the provable. To a empirical or materialistic world view, yes, no value can be proved.

But, it cannot be proved that "nothing exists that can"t be proven."

As I see it some values exist that cannot be proven. (theory of forms)

Since there is no way of judging between our worldviews without looking through one then it is impossible to prove one right or wrong.

If you can"t tell me why I should care why purple is purple without referring to the unprovable and therefore negating the materialistic world view, then I honestly do not care what science can prove.

There are a lot of people that do believe a dichotomy exists.

Here is the idea I am getting at: If scientific minded people have to rely on unprovable reasons or values for why they believe as they do, then deists can believe as they do without providing provable reasons or values.

*** FIXED ***There are so many comments and so little time. I really do not have time to develop a good response to all of them but I will try to hit the ones that I found interesting. I am rolling up all my responses in one post to save a lite time. This is obviously not going to change anyones mind but I thought I would throw it out there anyway. I am sure I can count on some sarcastic responses showing up soon.

99% of the world places a value on truth, life, bravery, compassion, etc. Yet these things are beyond any type of validation by science. I believe that some values exist apart from any scientific proof of their existence. The preponderance of numbers of people that share common values even across completely different societies and worldviews attest to this.

At 2/10/2013 10:07:56 AM, j_lowe wrote:I posted this somewhere else the other day but I think it needs its own separate discussion.

I think that mankinds fascination with truth is very telling...

We are all on this website talking about what is true to the best of our conceptions. We are all trying to find out what is true, and trying to convince everyone else of what it is we found.

Why do we do this?Why do I desire truth?

Scientific Rational answer:

"In infinite space, in infinite time, infinitely small particles change their forms in infinite complexity, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

The problem with science is the sequence of cause and effect only works when you talk about material phenomena.

It is only necessary for experimental science to introduce a question of value for it to become nonsensical.

Yet, truth is universally valued by people. This value people place on truth is something that science cannot explain adequately.

The whole reason anyone even cares about science is because they are looking for truth. But science cannot, and will not be able to answer the question why should I care about truth.

In other words science cannot answer the question "why should I care about science?"

Therefore it is irrational to care about science.

I would rather believe in God, It makes more rational sense :)

*** So there it is. I am sure that someone has thoughts or opinions, However I doubt anyone will be able to give a scientifically testable reason that science, or truth has value, and is therefore worth caring about***

... He says typing on a computer that communicates through a human made network, wearing synthetic fabrics in a building of solid construction that is hooked up to the electricity grid, some power of which is provided through nuclear power stations, and most of the rest of which is powered from non renewable Fuels that will run out in a relatively short space of time. I'm sure you probably also drive, take medication, and use a mobile phone: and probably also use gps through those same devices....

Unless your Amish, it is probably wise you shut up claiming science has no purpose and you shouldn't care about it, whilst at the same time reaping all the rewards of living in a society that is built on 300 or so years of modern science.

It's irrational to think you have to choose between believing in God and caring about science, you don't, they are complimentary and mutuallt reinforcing. Your distinction between the two is contrived.

I can"t accept a conflict between religious truth and scientific truth because to do so I would have to believe in a self-contradicting God; and that is something I simply can not accept.

"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater

At 2/10/2013 10:07:56 AM, j_lowe wrote:I posted this somewhere else the other day but I think it needs its own separate discussion.

I think that mankinds fascination with truth is very telling...

We are all on this website talking about what is true to the best of our conceptions. We are all trying to find out what is true, and trying to convince everyone else of what it is we found.

Why do we do this?Why do I desire truth?

Scientific Rational answer:

"In infinite space, in infinite time, infinitely small particles change their forms in infinite complexity, and when you have under stood all the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you have desires."

The problem with science is the sequence of cause and effect only works when you talk about material phenomena.

It is only necessary for experimental science to introduce a question of value for it to become nonsensical.

Yet, truth is universally valued by people. This value people place on truth is something that science cannot explain adequately.

The whole reason anyone even cares about science is because they are looking for truth. But science cannot, and will not be able to answer the question why should I care about truth.

In other words science cannot answer the question "why should I care about science?"

Therefore it is irrational to care about science.

I would rather believe in God, It makes more rational sense :)

*** So there it is. I am sure that someone has thoughts or opinions, However I doubt anyone will be able to give a scientifically testable reason that science, or truth has value, and is therefore worth caring about***

... He says typing on a computer that communicates through a human made network, wearing synthetic fabrics in a building of solid construction that is hooked up to the electricity grid, some power of which is provided through nuclear power stations, and most of the rest of which is powered from non renewable Fuels that will run out in a relatively short space of time. I'm sure you probably also drive, take medication, and use a mobile phone: and probably also use gps through those same devices....

Unless your Amish, it is probably wise you shut up claiming science has no purpose and you shouldn't care about it, whilst at the same time reaping all the ,rewards of living in a society that is built on 300 or so years of modern science.

This is why this site neebs a tumbs up feature.

"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.

... He says typing on a computer that communicates through a human made network, wearing synthetic fabrics in a building of solid construction that is hooked up to the electricity grid, some power of which is provided through nuclear power stations, and most of the rest of which is powered from non renewable Fuels that will run out in a relatively short space of time. I'm sure you probably also drive, take medication, and use a mobile phone: and probably also use gps through those same devices....

Unless your Amish, it is probably wise you shut up claiming science has no purpose and you shouldn't care about it, whilst at the same time reaping all the rewards of living in a society that is built on 300 or so years of modern science.

I live in the world I live in, and was born when I was born.

If none of the things you mention were in place maybe I would be growing my own food, making my own clothes, and living in a tent, instead of wasting my time on the internet, that seems like a fair trade.

Maybe the polar ice caps wouldn't be melting, maybe there wouldn't be dead zones in the ocean, Maybe we wouldn't be under the constant threat of nuclear, biological, or chemical war/terrorism.

Maybe if some science-y type can build a time machine and get me to a point in history that is not on the brink of human extinction (mainly due to the misuse of science and technology) then I will say science was useful.

From Wikipedia -

"One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview precisely because they are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than argued for.[18] However their coherence can be explored philosophically and logically

If two different worldviews have sufficient common beliefs it may be possible to have a constructive dialogue between them.[19]"

... He says typing on a computer that communicates through a human made network, wearing synthetic fabrics in a building of solid construction that is hooked up to the electricity grid, some power of which is provided through nuclear power stations, and most of the rest of which is powered from non renewable Fuels that will run out in a relatively short space of time. I'm sure you probably also drive, take medication, and use a mobile phone: and probably also use gps through those same devices....

Unless your Amish, it is probably wise you shut up claiming science has no purpose and you shouldn't care about it, whilst at the same time reaping all the rewards of living in a society that is built on 300 or so years of modern science.

I live in the world I live in, and was born when I was born.

If none of the things you mention were in place maybe I would be growing my own food, making my own clothes, and living in a tent, instead of wasting my time on the internet, that seems like a fair trade.

Maybe the polar ice caps wouldn't be melting, maybe there wouldn't be dead zones in the ocean, Maybe we wouldn't be under the constant threat of nuclear, biological, or chemical war/terrorism.

Maybe if some science-y type can build a time machine and get me to a point in history that is not on the brink of human extinction (mainly due to the misuse of science and technology) then I will say science was useful.

From Wikipedia -

"One can think of a worldview as comprising a number of basic beliefs which are philosophically equivalent to the axioms of the worldview considered as a logical theory. These basic beliefs cannot, by definition, be proven (in the logical sense) within the worldview precisely because they are axioms, and are typically argued from rather than argued for.[18] However their coherence can be explored philosophically and logically

If two different worldviews have sufficient common beliefs it may be possible to have a constructive dialogue between them.[19]"

I guess we will not be having a constructive dialogue....

And maybe you would have been one of the billions that would have died from various curable disease, conditions or hunger.

Lets be clear, this thread ls not about the various benefits of different words views, or the validity materialism, but you making the absurd statement that it irrational to care about science, the one modern concept that has the biggest impact on your life, for better or worse.

As such it ceased to be constructive conversation the moment you hit 'add thread'.